WW2 BAD-T IV BDAc AI Dogfight Tournament

[Pds314]

I just realized... I can make a heavy with 420 rounds per SECOND.

(albeit rounds that do barely anything)

The impracticality industrial design bureau presents...

Edited October 13, 2018 by Pds314

[Guest]

Some test vids of my designs:

 

[Pds314]

It would be really interesting if there was a mod that attempted to simulate the forces on the control yoke and the strength required to move it. This was an important factor in real life, as boosted controls and fly-by-wire were not yet available on fighter-sized aircraft (or most bombers for that matter!) There was no "power steering" so to speak.

One consequence of this is that some planes had very good turn time at low dynamic pressure, but were quite "heavy" to control at high dynamic pressure, and it's possible that the pilot simply would not be able to push the surface to full deflection under those conditions, reducing the instantaneous turn rate even if the G loading on the plane or pilot was not an issue.

You could probably sort of hack it with dynamic deflection or something, but the issue is that it would have to be all calculated manually.

Of course, this isn't real life.

Our Widshed engines have about 1080 kW (1450 HP) of thrust power at 120 m/s despite being considered "weak" in our meta. But for example the BF109, FW-190, Merlin Spitfire, La-5, La-7, etc used engines in this power range. The A6M3's engine was considerably weaker.

Meanwhile, the Falcon engine is more like 2380 kW (3190 HP) which is pretty crazy. I'm not saying they couldn't have made a fighter with such an engine, just that there aren't any examples I can think of late WWII fighters over around 2200 HP per engine, and even those are few and far between. The sole example I can find of a 3000 HP fighter produced during WWII would be the Goodyear F2G Corsair, but it was an American Wunderwaffe as much as the Ho-229 was a German one, with most of the 10 aircraft produced never flying, and none seeing combat.

Likewise, our empty weight restrictions don't match historical empty weights. An empty A6M2 weighs 1680 kg.

Edited October 14, 2018 by Pds314

[Noir]

On 9/25/2018 at 9:18 AM, SuicidalInsanity said:

No aerospace grade parts (radiators/heatshields/airbrakes/etc)

Small question, does this rule refer to all airbrakes including ones made from control surfaces, or does it only refer to the A.I.R.B.R.A.K.E.S part?

[Pds314]

56 minutes ago, Noir said:

Small question, does this rule refer to all airbrakes including ones made from control surfaces, or does it only refer to the A.I.R.B.R.A.K.E.S part?

I'm fairly sure we're allowed and encouraged to use spoilers or dragrudders if needed.

[SuicidalInsanity]

Engines and mass limits aren't realistic in this, nor were they intended to be. Mass limits are what they are because KSP parts are heavy, to allow Mk1 inline cockpit designs to be competitive with much lighter constructed cockpits; engine thrusts and masses are a middle ground from BAD-T II, where they were very heavy and very powerful, and BAD-T III where they were closer to 'realistic'  TWR but resulted in people feeling the engines were unnecessarily anemic and hard to use.

Noir: What Pds314 said. The A.I.R.B.R.A.K.E. part is not allowed, since there's weird interactions with stock airbrake code and FAR. Airbrakes/dragrudders/spoilers made from elevons or procedural control surfaces are fine.

[Noir]

Thought it would be best to ask just in case. Good to know though, thanks.

[Guest]

On 10/14/2018 at 3:47 AM, Pds314 said:

Our Widshed engines have about 1080 kW (1450 HP) of thrust power at 120 m/s despite being considered "weak" in our meta. But for example the BF109, FW-190, Merlin Spitfire, La-5, La-7, etc used engines in this power range. The A6M3's engine was considerably weaker.

Meanwhile, the Falcon engine is more like 2380 kW (3190 HP) which is pretty crazy.

Just curious, how did you calculate the HP values? 

[Pds314]

9 hours ago, dundun92 said:

Just curious, how did you calculate the HP values? 

Work = Force * Distance.

Power = Force * Speed.

Apply unit appropriate conversions as needed.

[Guest]

Just now, Pds314 said:

Work = Force * Distance.

Power = Force * Speed.

Apply unit appropriate conversions as needed.

So I would use M/S and Kn?

[Pds314]

1 minute ago, dundun92 said:

So I would use M/S and Kn?

Yes if you want kW. 1 kW = 1 kN*m/s

Edited October 16, 2018 by Pds314

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Pds314 said:

Yes if you want kW. 1 kW = 1 kN*m/s

Ok, I get it now. Thanks! 

[Pds314]

On 10/14/2018 at 11:17 AM, SuicidalInsanity said:

Engines and mass limits aren't realistic in this, nor were they intended to be. Mass limits are what they are because KSP parts are heavy, to allow Mk1 inline cockpit designs to be competitive with much lighter constructed cockpits; engine thrusts and masses are a middle ground from BAD-T II, where they were very heavy and very powerful, and BAD-T III where they were closer to 'realistic'  TWR but resulted in people feeling the engines were unnecessarily anemic and hard to use.

Noir: What Pds314 said. The A.I.R.B.R.A.K.E. part is not allowed, since there's weird interactions with stock airbrake code and FAR. Airbrakes/dragrudders/spoilers made from elevons or procedural control surfaces are fine.

Yeah I think stock cockpits are quite heavy and would be uncompetitive with a lower mass limit. So far in my testing, reinforcing your aircraft is beneficial, but only to a point, as it makes little difference how tough your plane is if it can't get the enemy off its tail and into the crosshair, so even though the stock cockpits can be quite durable, the extra mass is better spent on reinforcing wings and tail, armoring the engine (if it's not one of the more durable ones), upping the ammo count (empty boxes are far from massless), or left out entirely.

I think also anemic thrust, while more realistic, also runs headlong into the AI settings. Having most planes have widshed-class or even Brutus-class engines would mean the AI's less-than-optimal energy management skills would slow everything down.

 

Then again, my four-tonne plane with an equal cost in guns can win a non-negligible number of fights with my three-tonne plane even though the heavier craft has the same points spent on guns and a weaker engine. The four-tonne plane uses a 100% pure Stalinium fuselage better structural reinforcement to tank a surprising number of hits. In a 2-VS-1 it will almost inevitably win against the more maneuverable enemy, and in the event of ramming it often survives in airworthy condition, unlike my lighter plane. Low mass and good power loading, wing loading, and power/mass doesn't always win the fight. Not when you can unleash substantial numbers of rounds into the more durable planes with cosmetic damage or reduction in maneuverability being the likely result unless the damage is truly devastating. 

Edited October 16, 2018 by Pds314

[Pds314]

"Weapons cost their caliber in mm"

*looks at rocket pods*

*doesn't see a caliber listed.*

HMMMMM....

Edited October 16, 2018 by Pds314

[sturmhauke]

A rocket is just a large, self-propelled bullet, right?

[Pds314]

3 hours ago, sturmhauke said:

A rocket is just a large, self-propelled bullet, right?

I mean, except in all the ways it isn't. But it's certainly a self-propelled projectile, as is an aeroplane.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Pds314 said:

as is an aeroplane.

Do I hear intentional ramming? 

[SuicidalInsanity]

Alright, there's one week from today to submit an aircraft; so far I've received 1 entry. Several of you have posted development pics for aircraft, but for the lurkers in the thread, could I get a quick show of hands from those working on an entry to get an estimate of tournament roster size/how many bots will be needed and/or determine if I need to extend the deadline?

[sturmhauke]

I'm working on a heavy fighter. That pic I posted before was a P-38 style aircraft, but I wasn't sure I could make that work well enough with the constraints so I opted for a traditional single fuselage design.

[Pds314]

My current plan is to submit a Shadowbird variant, either the Mk IV or a derivative of it I am working on.

I may upload some other crafts as dummies for you to shoot down. My first overly-heavy plane might be a good dummy to kill if you need to hone your plane's targeting skills, seeing as it takes a decent number of hits to get a kill on it, and while it bleeds energy like crazy in certain situations and lacks maneuverability at low speeds, it's more or less invulnerable until you get its energy down.

My current biggest fear is Dundun92's twin-engine plane because it seems to have good turning rates AND good energy retention in a turn AND decent energy retention in a dive. Dundun92's single engine plane does not appear nearly as dangerous.

Edited October 22, 2018 by Pds314

[Pds314]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA FAR IS BROKEN OH MY JESUS AAAAAAA

I updated to 1.5.1 on accident. Need to backdate...

Edited October 22, 2018 by Pds314

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Pds314 said:

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA FAR IS BROKEN OH MY JESUS AAAAAAA

I updated to 1.5.1 on accident. Need to backdate...

Check yo stagin KSP version! 

[Pds314]

Currently attempting to design a UFO.

2 photos. I bet you still can't tell what engine it's got:

EDIT: hmm... it appears that the AI puts it in unrecoverable flat spins too often regardless of the settings.

Edited October 23, 2018 by Pds314

[Pds314]

Okay... I may have built a heavy that can kill my shadowbird..

.... IF it can avoid 580 mph dives to its doom... Note the pitch. This is AI stupidity, not lack of maneuverability.

If it gets a burst on you... you're gonna lose parts. Mk108 was quoted IRL as delivering "Shattering" hits. It has excellent energy retention in a turn in comparison to literally all of my other planes except the flying wing (which the AI can't control even for 15 seconds).

Edited October 23, 2018 by Pds314

[Pds314]

I lost a heavy due to it colliding with the SPH on takeoff. The other one managed to pull a victory out of a tough situation. It's latest victim has the appropriate expression on his face that one gets when one is no longer in a valid cockpit and just lost an ammo box due to exploding 30mm rounds.



The WINNER in what ended up being an unintended 1 vs 1:

Edited October 23, 2018 by Pds314